Monday, July 02, 2012

My favorite play in baseball is the second base steal. In the play, the base runner watches the pitch, and at just the right moment, he sprints toward second. The catcher snatches the pitch, springs up and rockets the ball to the second baseman who snags it and tries to tag the runner as he slides into the base. As the dust clears, all eyes are on the second base umpire who, in a split second, calls the runner safe or out. When the play is over, the players dust themselves off, and the game goes on.

Some on the field may disagree with the umpire’s call. However, the umpire’s decision is final, and arguing can get you ejected. To stay in the game, great teams simply adjust their strategy based on the umpire’s call.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

The problem is that we are such outrageous consumers of energy that small, manageable changes probably won't make a huge difference. We should still move in that direction, but the idea that we can cut a fifth of our emissions at minimal cost to our economy and our way of life is hard to believe. It's going to cost a lot of money and we're in tough financial times right now.

Even CB, who is marginally of the "problem is too big" group, acknowledges the science.

I think that's the really disconcerting part. I think I'm pretty moderate and realistic on this issue: we should be doing something (which we are), we should be trying to do more (which I also think we are), but we need to prioritize our efforts to address this problem and a number of other problems we are facing as a nation and a planet.

I'm being characterized by some as "throwing my hands up in the air" and "wanting to do nothing."

I don't mind turning my thermostat down 2 degrees, but it really doesn't matter if all of my neighbors are spending 2 hours per day in their cars.

That's why policy matters.

"Many, many decades"? I thought Manhattan and Miami were going to be underwater by 2050 if we don't change our ways and fast?

Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't, but efforting to avoid that eventuality would be a good thing, not to mention that improvements in energy efficiency is in itself a good thing.

The same argument against addressing AGW can also apply to other policy issues, like spending — too big, can't change anything, can't avoid the cliff anyways. You're a deficit hawk, Joe, would you agree that we should address the budget the way you want to address AGW, and let the chips fall where they may?

We have a remarkably low population density in this country, made more dramatic by several very large urban population centers. A huge part of this country simply cannot function without heavy automobile travel, and we consume enormous amounts of energy shipping goods from one region to another. At the same time, we've got ancient infrastructure that gets replaced a little piece at a time. We've gone about 150 years since we last had a whole city destroyed by war that we had to rebuild (and even then, never in most of our largest cities).

We're not even close to our fair share of carbon emissions; if we were to cut our output in half, we'd be only slightly behind the entire European Union. The reason I think cap and trade won't work for us is because we'd need an obnoxiously large cap or to spend an outrageous amount of money buying credits from other countries (something our economy can't handle right now, and perhaps never will be able to). The United States, for better or worse, is fundamentally different from every other country in the world, and "worked for Europe" doesn't translate into "works for the US."

Cars only make up between 25 and 30% of the country's greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, new fuel efficiency standards are effective at reducing that.

I think that's the really disconcerting part. I think I'm pretty moderate and realistic on this issue: we should be doing something (which we are), we should be trying to do more (which I also think we are), but we need to prioritize our efforts to address this problem and a number of other problems we are facing as a nation and a planet.

I'm being characterized by some as "throwing my hands up in the air" and "wanting to do nothing."

Though I admit it's kind of fun that this comes from someone to whom climate change is a religion.

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

I don't remember coming out against "incremental improvement in technology." I came out against forcing billions of people to reduce their standard of living via draconian regulation of carbon emissions, etc.

You're a deficit hawk, Joe, would you agree that we should address the budget the way you want to address AGW, and let the chips fall where they may?

No. Within the context of the budget, every dollar not spent is a dollar not spent. But with climate change, no one even knows with any certainty that we'd get positive ROI on the billions or trillions of dollars spent (or that the reduction in standard of living would be worth the sacrifice).

Ray, on what grounds do you reject Muller's findings? Because right now it sounds like there's no possible study that could convince you off of your position. So yeah, crazy seems an apt description for such a behavior.

Cars only make up between 25 and 30% of the country's greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, new fuel efficiency standards are effective at reducing that.

It's not just cars. It's trucking and rail and planes that deliver goods all around the country.

This also has nothing to do with C&T.

Are you talking about regional/national C&T or worldwide C&T like the IET in Kyoto?

I want to make sure we're not talking about two different things. I'm fine with regional C&T, but I'm not fine with committing to an international agreement where money flows out of this country into other countries to purchase carbon offsets. We have our own problems to fix that are more imminent and we can't afford to pay more for energy than we're already paying. I'm also skeptical of our ability to ensure accurate measurement and reporting and to enforce the caps on other sovereign nations.

Which is why we should build transit infrastructure and tax gasoline to $10 per gallon. Thanks for pointing that out.

Yes, I thought we'd thoroughly established that while personal lifestyle choices are all well and good, the significant issue is in public energy/transportation/urban planning policy. Yet Joe keeps pulling out the "you hypocritical liberals still drive cars" card.

Within the context of the budget, every dollar not spent is a dollar not spent. But with climate change, no one even knows with any certainty that we'd get positive ROI on the billions or trillions of dollars spent (or that the reduction in standard of living would be worth the sacrifice).

But how are you going to not spend that money? You've said yourself that it might be a bad idea to cut military spending because of how that would impact jobs — that's true across the board.

I believe the people who see AGW as being an unapproachable problem are looking at it the way Malthus looked at population increases. All of his possible solutions were from the past, and even though his theories seemed to make perfect sense at the time, technology rendered Malthus hopelessly wrong within a few decades. Again, I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that following the existing course isn't it.

I'm enjoying Mitt's PR operations response to his Israel-Palestinian "culture" dust-up -- the response is essentially "I wasn't just talking about the Palestinians -- Mexico has inferior culture compared to the US

Which is why we should build transit infrastructure and tax gasoline to $10 per gallon. Thanks for pointing that out.

That sounds like more political suicide. I think we heavily subsidize the automobile in this country simply by failing to charge people adequately for the public cost of driving (pollution, noise, damage to roads, etc.) but good luck selling that to the American people.

We couldn't even get a $8 congestion tax passed here in Manhattan. I take far too many cabs but I'd have eaten the $1/trip surcharge to get that passed.

The topic on NPR's Science Friday a week or two ago was the whole issue of how it is in the U.S. that AGW is a complete non-issue in the Presidential campaign. While I'm not one of those liberals who's fraught with disillusionment about Obama, I do think this is a case of him being in his hyper-cautious mode, afraid of losing some independent/undecided votes by coming across as a tree-hugging environmentalist. I would sure love to see Obama and other high-profile Democrats push the AGW issue as a way of demonstrating a meaningful difference between the parties, and forcing Romney/Republicans into a defensive profile on the issue.

Also, thanks Steve, LA. I understand how frustrating it is to see the movement to discredit climate change science in this country, and now see it shift the goalposts, but I'm not in the same camp as those people.

It's not just cars. It's trucking and rail and planes that deliver goods all around the country.

Sorry, transportation as a whole sector is only between 25 and 30% of the carbon production.

The largest contributor to carbon creation is electrical generation, not transportation.

Are you talking about regional/national C&T or worldwide C&T like the IET in Kyoto?

I want to make sure we're not talking about two different things. I'm fine with regional C&T, but I'm not fine with committing to an international agreement where money flows out of this country into other countries to purchase carbon offsets. We have our own problems to fix that are more imminent and we can't afford to pay more for energy than we're already paying. I'm also skeptical of our ability to ensure accurate measurement and reporting and to enforce the caps on other sovereign nations.

That sounds like more political suicide. I think we heavily subsidize the automobile in this country simply by failing to charge people adequately for the public cost of driving (pollution, noise, damage to roads, etc.) but good luck selling that to the American people.

The American people are stupid and need to be beaten into submission. We can start with Ray and Joe.

Yes, yes, the one closer to your position is the more rational one. Shocking how that works.
Though I admit it's kind of fun that this comes from someone to whom climate change is a religion.

You've been challenged intelligently and specifically on this over and over again. Looking back on what you've chosen to answer and what you've ignored speaks for itself. The idea that oil companies have bazillions of dollars to fund science that disproves global warming? Ignored. The idea that speaking out in support of the incredibly sound science costs absolutely zero dollars? Ignored. DP's argument about your utter dismissal of scientific method? Ignored.

To be honest, I've re-read a bunch of your posts, and I can't figure out your position at all other than LIBERALS ARE WRONG ALWAYS. "I never said global warming was a hoax", although you have said we are cultists because we actually believe the science. "I never claimed scientists were all lying", just that some of them have other motivations, plural, after which you name one: funding, and the rest are insignificant because identification of a problem is worthless without also identifying a solution. You've claimed that liberals are writing in accordance to their worldview, but you've spent exactly zero time addressing what started this whole thing, the scientist hand-picked by the very conservative Koch brothers writing NOT in accordance to their worldview. You call liberals part of a climate religion when we are using science and you have brought absolutely nothing to back you up other than "the patent attorney knows him some weather." The part where you take a swipe at liberals suggesting you do something you don't want to do - I dunno, don't drive that behemoth of an SUV you don't need in manhattan or maybe use fewer plastic bags - when we're all orgyfucking babykillers who refuse to do anything but watch HAIR was especially endearing.

I dunno. This recap is pretty pointless, I suppose. It was somewhat interesting to me, I guess.

Which is why we should build transit infrastructure and tax gasoline to $10 per gallon. Thanks for pointing that out.

Sure. That would have no adverse effect on standard of living or the economy.

***

Yes, I thought we'd thoroughly established that while personal lifestyle choices are all well and good, the significant issue is in public energy/transportation/urban planning policy. Yet Joe keeps pulling out the "you hypocritical liberals still drive cars" card.

"Urban planning policy"? That train left the station decades ago. What's your plan for compelling tens of millions of people to move into densely populated cities and ditch their cars (and McMansions)?

***

I believe the people who see AGW as being an unapproachable problem are looking at it the way Malthus looked at population increases. All of his possible solutions were from the past, and even though his theories seemed to make perfect sense at the time, technology rendered Malthus hopelessly wrong within a few decades.

You keep talking as if I'm anti-technology. I'm not. As I've been saying all along, the only real-world solution to the energy/climate change problem is technology, because 7 billion people aren't going to voluntarily reduce their standard of living and politicians won't ever compel them to do so.

"Urban planning policy"? That train left the station decades ago. What's your plan for compelling tens of millions of people to move into densely populated cities and ditch their cars (and McMansions)?

You know what, I do have a question for you, Ray: What about the liberals' support of action combatting climate change is cultish? I mean, words have meanings, and I'm not understanding your usage here. I wouldn't call you cultish for wanting people to stop spending what they don't have and for countries to stop spending what they don't have, although that will obviously cause a lot of people a lot of financial hardship at this point - seemingly your biggest problem with the liberals on this issue. Where exactly are you getting "cult" from?

Sorry, transportation as a whole sector is only between 25 and 30% of the carbon production.

The largest contributor to carbon creation is electrical generation, not transportation.

Even so, 25-30% of our carbon production is a huge, huge number. There's plenty of improvement to be had there.

What are you proposing to reduce our carbon creation from electricity? I'm pro-nuclear, as at the very least a stopgap until natural power sources (solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric) catch up. CFLs and EnergyStar appliances? I'm for that.

because 7 billion people aren't going to voluntarily reduce their standard of living and politicians won't ever compel them to do so.

You never bothered answering this before, so I'll repeat what has to be a very very basic point: as 7 billion people did not act in concert to get the world to this position, 7 billion people will not have to do so to have a positive effect. In fact, it is the slowing down of the current effects that will ALLOW the science you want to use to get to the position to help. But god forbid we try anything like THAT.

The idea that some magic technology fixing the whole thing in one fell swoop is the ONLY POSSIBLE ACTION is incredibly weird.

You know what, I do have a question for you, Ray: What about the liberals' support of action combatting climate change is cultish? I mean, words have meanings, and I'm not understanding your usage here. [...] Where exactly are you getting "cult" from?

Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. ...

• The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
• Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
• [...]
• The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel ...
• The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
• The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
• [...]
• The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
• [...]
• The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
• The group is preoccupied with making money.
• [...]
• Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

You know what, I do have a question for you, Ray: What about the liberals' support of action combatting climate change is cultish? I mean, words have meanings, and I'm not understanding your usage here. I wouldn't call you cultish for wanting people to stop spending what they don't have and for countries to stop spending what they don't have, although that will obviously cause a lot of people a lot of financial hardship at this point - seemingly your biggest problem with the liberals on this issue. Where exactly are you getting "cult" from?

I'm getting "cult" from the fact that the liberal approach to this issue -- moving money around and forcing drastic lifestyle changes on people -- is entirely in line with the way liberals approach pretty much all issues. You wave your hands about the science, as if that's informing your approach, when really your worldview is informing your approach. Climate change is a means to and end - just a vehicle to have the society "progress" in ways you think it should. If this weren't true you'd consider the obviously legitimate approach of doing nothing, which approach is supported by any reasonable cost-benefit analysis. But you never consider that, because your religion won't allow you to.

If you don't like the word "cult," substitute "religion" or "worldview."

You never bothered answering this before, so I'll repeat what has to be a very very basic point: as 7 billion people did not act in concert to get the world to this position, 7 billion people will not have to do so to have a positive effect.

And I'll repeat a very basic point: Every single person in a developing country who didn't contribute to climate change in the past now aspires to contribute to climate change in the future. That is, poor people in developing countries have absolutely no desire to remain poor just so Mother Earth might be 2 degrees cooler some 50 or 100 years from now. They want houses and cars and electrical gadgets just like us polluting Americans.

I'm getting "cult" from the fact that the liberal approach to this issue -- moving money around and forcing drastic lifestyle changes on people -- is entirely in line with the way liberals approach pretty much all issues. You wave your hands about the science, as if that's informing your approach, when really your worldview is informing your approach. Climate change is a means to and end - just a vehicle to have the society "progress" in ways you think it should. If this weren't true you'd consider the obviously legitimate approach of doing nothing, which approach is supported by any reasonable cost-benefit analysis. But you never consider that, because your religion won't allow you to.

So basically: It's way easier for you to run around waving like a ####### lunatic crying about liberals wanting to enslave you with their worldview than it is to refute the evidence your own side offered against your position. Still.

"The solutions involved require money to change hands" is not a rebuttal.

You keep talking as if I'm anti-technology. I'm not. As I've been saying all along, the only real-world solution to the energy/climate change problem is technology

You've qualified technological advances as having to be "major" to matter. I'm arguing that the constant, incremental, widely adopted improvements in energy efficiency would, over time, have a large impact on AGW. Again, I'm not looking for the 5-run homer. I'm just looking for a run here and a run there, because they add up.

That is, poor people in developing countries have absolutely no desire to remain poor just so Mother Earth might be 2 degrees cooler some 50 or 100 years from now. They want houses and cars and electrical gadgets just like us polluting Americans.

Poor people in America want that, too. Thus, it would behoove us all to work towards more energy-efficient ways to deliver those products.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

Remember when Ray and DMN and Joe were trying to save the world from the freedom-hating liberals in the ObamaCare thread? Good times.

So, the argument from Joe is: paying attention to climate change means a majority of lives will not improve and a vast majority of poor people will remain poor. I think this is not entirely sound, but there you go.

Ray, thanks for answering, even if your answer was simply to - yet again - call liberals dishonest.

You've qualified technological advances as having to be "major" to matter. I'm arguing that the constant, incremental, widely adopted improvements in energy efficiency would, over time, have a large impact on AGW.

And, again, when have I argued against such incremental technological advances? I'm in favor of technological advances, but things like "cap and trade" aren't technological advances. They're political schemes.

Poor people in America want that, too. Thus, it would behoove us all if there were more energy-efficient ways to deliver those products.

When did I argue against advances in energy efficiency? As with your misrepresentation of Crosby's position, you seem to be having a debate with some entirely different person.

***

Remember when Ray and DMN and Joe were trying to save the world from the freedom-hating liberals in the ObamaCare thread? Good times.

Jim gives Andy a month off and now 'Good Face,' DMN, and 'snapper' have all gone MIA. I better go lock my doors ...

Yes, yes, in a massive country the size of the U.S., we totally should have expected people to cram into crowded cities rather take advantage of all the available space.

It's not what we should have expected people to do. I'm not moralizing. I stated that the US has a legacy infrastructure problem that developing nations don't. American ideology attached valor and nobility to a certain type of existence, tied to a certain type of conspicuous consumption. At this point, it just is what it is-- the price of being an early adopter. Your claim, because you seem to not be keeping track, was that we can't expect developing nations to adopt all of this expensive technology going forward. And my response was that it should be cheaper for them to adopt this technology, and build low carbon emissions into their infrastructure, because they don't have to displace high-carbon infrastructure in the first place. Insulating a 19th century home (we have a lot where I live) is insanely expensive compared to the cost of integrating energy efficiency into new construction. I'm not sure why your response to this is "America, #### YEAH!" when my statement about legacy infrastructure in the US wasn't intended as a diss.

Hey, I don't mock your second-grade spelling errors ...

Spelling mistakes can be corrected. Your inability to properly reason, not so much.

Ray, thanks for answering, even if your answer was simply to - yet again - call liberals dishonest.

I wouldn't - and didn't - use the word "dishonest" here. I think your worldview is clouding your ability to see the issue objectively. That's why I used the word "cult." I don't think cultists are dishonest, per se; they're just people who have drank the Kool-Aid.

It's similar to a religion, really, except in this case you have a different god. Which is kind of ironic given the way Sam and his merry band of catholic bashers treat Snapper in the religion wars debates.

And, again, when have I argued against such incremental technological advances? I'm in favor of technological advances, but things like "cap and trade" aren't technological advances. They're political schemes.

Policy matters. Continuing to hold on to the same unhappy energy policies that have guided us to this point does nothing for us. If ever new tech did rear its head, existing policies wouldn't know what to do with them.

And you haven't argued against incremental technological advances as you have completely ignored them in this discussion or claiming that only major advances would matter. I've brought up the idea of incremental advancements several times now, and you've brushed them off. Instead of feeding entrenched energy providers whose interests lie in old technologies billions in subsidies, tax breaks, etc. -- in essence fighting the last war -- we should be looking to see what's next.

This would imply that people who care deeply about the quality of discussion on this site think that you're worthless.

Great — another tough guy hiding behind an alias.

Of course, at least you posted it here in the thread, instead of running to the forums like 'Gold Star,' 'Perros,' and 'Tim Foli' to talk behind my back like a bunch of gossipy 14-year-olds. Talk about "worthless."

Ray, thanks for answering, even if your answer was simply to - yet again - call liberals dishonest.

Except Ray didn't answer your questions from #3832. He did retort to your relative softball question #3838. Which was a mistake posing it IMO, because it allowed him to dodge the harder questions from 3832 without making it look like he was dodging.

Policy matters. Continuing to hold on to the same unhappy energy policies that have guided us to this point does nothing for us. If ever new tech did rear its head, existing policies wouldn't know what to do with them.

Of course policy matters, but how do you propose to unring this particular bell?

The U.S. is a big country, population density is very low, and people are addicted to their cars. It would require forced relocations and perhaps trillions of dollars to accomplish population density such that car use was substantially reduced in favor of mass transit, walking, biking, etc.

Except Ray didn't answer your questions from #3832. He did retort to your relative softball question #3838. Which was a mistake posing it IMO, because it allowed him to dodge the harder questions from 3832 without making it look like he was dodging.

? WTF questions did he pose in 3832? I don't see any. He basically just vomits out what he believes my position to be.

It's similar to a religion, really, except in this case you have a different god. Which is kind of ironic given the way Sam and his merry band of catholic bashers treat Snapper in the religion wars debates.

Except for the part where it's backed up by structured, repeatable, and verifiable empirical observation, presented anonymously to a jury of one's peers. You know, the whole part where it becomes science-- the part you can't come to terms with, because you hate liberals.

There's a reason that Catholicism worked so hard to suppress science-- the church's claims to knowledge couldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, so used all the means it had available to suppress the competing theory of knowledge. Continuing to equate the two only demonstrates that you don't understand how knowledge is verified and produced in either system.

You wave your hands about the science, as if that's informing your approach, when really your worldview is informing your approach.

Own it, Ray.

I think your worldview is clouding your ability to see the issue objectively.

I don't know how to respond to this when you've dismissed, discounted, and ignored every last bit of scientific evidence in favor of calling the people using science a cult that lacks objectivity.

Which is kind of ironic given the way Sam and his merry band of catholic bashers treat Snapper in the religion wars debates.

Er, I think you're mistaking Sam for gef and others here. Unless I'm really missing something, Sam isn't among the anti-catholics here - he in fact made a point of debating me on being able to have morals without a religion. Although you seem to equate "anti-homophobe" with "anti-catholic", so that might explain it.

There's a reason that Catholicism worked so hard to suppress science-- the church's claims to knowledge couldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, so used all the means it had available to suppress the competing theory of knowledge. Continuing to equate the two only demonstrates that you don't understand how knowledge is verified and produced in either system.

I didn't equate science with catholicism; I equated liberalism with religion.

Of course, at least you posted it here in the thread, instead of running to the forums like 'Gold Star,' 'Perros,' and 'Tim Foli' to talk behind my back like a bunch of gossipy 14-year-olds. Talk about "worthless."

I believe Perros' forum comment was that he was disappointed in the responses you received. So I don't know why you are angry with him.

I did say that you grind my gears. I had not considered the effect my words would have on you when I typed them. I hereby apologize.

Perros - 30 July 2012 08:46 PM
I hate the charge of ‘troll’, but that’s all that brand is.

I'll be the first to admit that arguing politics on the internet is dumb, but the above is just lame. "Hey, let's announce we've put someone on Ignore — and then go talk about him for an hour." LOL.

(And I'll be damned if I can discern what I've said here today that could be construed as "trolling." I haven't even stated a position on climate change; I've simply said that we can't afford the proposals being pushed by prominent liberals, e.g., "cap and trade.")

It's similar to a religion, really, except in this case you have a different god. Which is kind of ironic given the way Sam and his merry band of catholic bashers treat Snapper in the religion wars debates.

Are you feeling left out because I haven't bashed your little Free Market Fairy Mammon recently, Ray?

Er, I think you're mistaking Sam for gef and others here. Unless I'm really missing something, Sam isn't among the anti-catholics here - he in fact made a point of debating me on being able to have morals without a religion.

Well, to be honest and fair, if you've got a wall, I'll argue with it.

Of course policy matters, but how do you propose to unring this particular bell?

The U.S. is a big country, population density is very low, and people are addicted to their cars. It would require forced relocations and perhaps trillions of dollars to accomplish population density such that car use was substantially reduced in favor of mass transit, walking, biking, etc.

And this is what I'm talking about: While I have made multiple posts on why we should be making small, incremental steps towards implementing new technologies, you always go directly to the worst case scenario and saying, "we can't stop it now!!!!" The point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't be trying to stop that now, all at once. It may well be that there will be things we won't be able to stop at this point, but if you grant that AGW is a reality, then we're either going to be relocating people and spending trillions on our own, or the shifting environment is eventually going to force us to do that anyways.

For now, we're not facing worst case scenarios. Perhaps it's possible to mitigate whatever damage is going to happen. Either way, if you grant that AGW is a reality then policy changes, the implementation of new tech, and the spending of money is all going to happen no matter what. I'd rather see us start down that direction now, before our hands are forced.

#3695 To pile on to your point, there's very little doubt that the government of Canada would cheerfully fund research that said global warming isn't happening/isn't a man-made problem, whatever. In precisely the same way the government of Quebec has for years funded research that minimizes the health risks of asbestos.

And this is what I'm talking about: While I have made multiple posts on why we should be making small, incremental steps towards implementing new technologies, you always go directly to the worst case scenario and saying, "we can't stop it now!!!!"

You keep flip-flopping between the words "technologies" and "policies." At no point have I argued against implementing technological advances. I've simply argued against energy policies whose costs potentially outweigh the benefits.

In theory, I'm with Sam — jack up the price of gas to $10 and the sprawl would stop almost overnight. But with millions of homes in the suburbs, such a policy would cripple the economy.

#3790 James Burke was one of the first to talk about global warming and he predicted that inertia would carry the day until it was too late. It's the concept behind "After The Warming". Not among his best stuff, but he certainly did a good job of predicting how the debate would play out.

There really are two issues in play. First, are the costs of averting climate change greater than the costs of climate change? Second, are the costs of averting climate change TO ME greater than the costs of climate change TO ME? The impact of climate change is not going to hit all countries equally -- nor obviously all people within a country -- so it should come as no surprise why it's hard to get all countries to agree on what their caps should be.

#3790 James Burke was one of the first to talk about global warming and he predicted that inertia would carry the day until it was too late. It's the concept behind "After The Warming". Not among his best stuff, but he certainly did a good job of predicting how the debate would play out.

I thought one of the strengths of "After the Warming" (though on the whole agreed not the best of Burke's work) was how he demonstrated the impact of climate on civilization, irrespective of civilization's impact on climate.

It's one of the things I never quite get about the climate change debate. At a certain point debating whether humans are the cause of climate change or not misses the point. If the climate is moving in a way that severely damages human life, who cares whether it's our fault or something beyond our control...let's do all we can to work against it.

On a more coherent note (as I am thoroughly unversed in climate affairs) this largely informative and educational thread has taken a poor turn recently towards the unecessarily personal. Speaking as an interested observer and one who hopes this politics off thread experiment works I urge civility.

You keep flip-flopping between the words "technologies" and "policies." At no point have I argued against implementing technological advances. I've simply argued against energy policies whose costs potentially outweigh the benefits.

We don't know what the future consequences for any policy moves are ever going to be. However, we do know that existing energy policies got us where we are today. Assuming AGW is true, we're talking trillions in damages and hundreds of thousands of lives, so whatever the potential costs of policy shifts are probably going to be less in the long run.

In theory, I'm with Sam — jack up the price of gas to $10 and the sprawl would stop almost overnight. But with millions of homes in the suburbs, such a policy would cripple the economy.

Sure, and that's why you don't do something like that. Incremental raising of gas prices over time, coupled with the end of subsidies and tax breaks to old energy development plans, would be a good start without crippling anything. Schemes that aim to change things overnight won't work; it's the ones that aim to change things over 20 years that will.

In theory, I'm with Sam — jack up the price of gas to $10 and the sprawl would stop almost overnight. But with millions of homes in the suburbs, such a policy would cripple the economy.

Economies are surprisingly fluid. Move the gas subsidies out of gas and oil and into solar and geo and let the market do what the market does. The problem isn't that it will tank the economy - it won't, not for any real length of time. The problem is that it will tank the re-election changes of anyone who puts such a good policy into place.

Which is why we should build transit infrastructure and tax gasoline to $10 per gallon. Thanks for pointing that out.

Sure. That would have no adverse effect on standard of living or the economy.

I have always though that this was the best idea. You couldn't immediately jack up the price of gas, but a tax of a 50 cents increased every year for 10 years would be a great idea. This would have to be combined with a tax rebate to everyone for the amount of the tax to subsidize the increase in costs. Increase in fuel tax would raise the prices of everything (as delivery, and production costs go up) but a $1000 rebate per family would cover the costs. If you consume more fuel, it is on you. It would be net revenue neutral but would lower carbon consumption.

I also would get away from fuel standards but tax heavily ($10,000) cars that are gas guzzlers.

The point is (well one of them) that it is really hard to have a discussion when groups representing half the political power inthe US go from "There is no problem" to "Too big, nothing we can do now" with no stops. Stop denying, stop giving up. You want a good conservative solution to be taken seriously then come up with one, because if you don't all the solutions are going to be liberal ones.

The current set of government policies strongly favor the status quo. They are not magical, they can be changed incrementally and will make a difference. We can put government dollars to funding alternative technology (like fusion research - which is criminally underfunded; carbon sequestration; efficient solar; and so on) instead of subsidies for oil companies and roads. Cap and trade can be phased in such that it does not drastically crash the economy.

You will find if you compromise and come up with suggestions, liberals will gladly go along. If you stone wall, deny, and fight every step of the way then you will delay things, but like with health care, eventually something will get done. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

And no, doing nothing, is not a good option. If for no other reason then things do not stay the same. Change will happen. Pretending it won't, pretending oil can last forever and dumping crap into the atmosphere forever has no impact on anything ever is just silly.

According to you, every scientific projection about the impact of global warming is fear mongering. It's a scary situation. It's not as scary in the short-term if you're a wealthy person living in the US, because you'll be largely insulated from shifts in and disruptions to the food supply*, but even in the medium-term, there no real way for the US to not be impacted by it.

*except when people preparing for natural disasters have the audacity to buy up all the bread at your local bodega...

Doing "all we can" to work against something that is "beyond our control" doesn't make us smarter than the giraffes and chimps. It makes us dumber.

You don't get to argue against the validity of empirical science and then five minutes later strike the smartest guy in the room pose. You've decided to take a strong and intractable stance against the premise of evidence-based reasoning.

You will find if you compromise and come up with suggestions, liberals will gladly go along. If you stone wall, deny, and fight every step of the way then you will delay things, but like with health care, eventually something will get done. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I like the idea of removing subsidies for oil companies and roads, and I think nuclear is a great temporary solution (eventually, we really want waste-free energy sources). I'm not much a fan of replacing those subsidies with subsidies for alternate power sources. In fact, I think that is a very large part of what has created the problem in the first place.

I will, you are dishonest. You have been dishonest repeatedly in this post. When called on your dishonesty you accuse others of lying. You are a class A troll. It'd be more useful discussing things with RossCW.

You know what, I do have a question for you, Ray: What about the liberals' support of action combatting climate change is cultish? I mean, words have meanings, and I'm not understanding your usage here. [...] Where exactly are you getting "cult" from?

Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups

***

Hmm ...

So Joe, now that you have established beyond any doubt that the Faux News audience are cultists, what are you going to do about it?